Is Debbie Wasserman Schultz Right?

Gary North, former staff economist for Ron Paul, has a blog called Tea Party Economist in which he posts links to current political and economic news. His latest posting carries an article on Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s claim that the Democrats will win in 2014 because they will stand solidly behind the Affordable Care Act aka ObamaCare. For those who don’t know, Ms. Schultz is the national chairwoman of the Democrat Party.Judging by the article’s comments and other reactions around the web Republicans and conservatives are having knee-slapping guffaws over her announcement. But they shouldn’t be in such a hurry to dismiss her words. There is a method to her seeming madness. You see she understands that the moral argument always wins over the practical argument. Her party and its sycophants in the media have been arguing that ObamaCare is a “moral imperative” and other moral platitudes. The Republicans have been confining themselves to the practical argument that ObamaCare doesn’t work and in doing so have conceded the moral high ground to the Democrats.

She further knows that Obama will present himself to the voting public in a very presidential way. He will campaign against all the disastrous results of the ACA and promise to fix or get fixed all the problems. The public will vote for his Party because they will still think it cares about them which caring they consider to be of uber importance. They will not see the Republican’s claim that ObamaCare is bad because it doesn’t work, as having no more moral importance than fixing a flat tire. They will go with the Dems.

Unless that is, the Republicans learn to retake the moral high ground from the Dems. It’s not that hard to do. For example, the next time a news anchor or politician or academic confronts a Republican with “you don’t care about the needy” or homeless or uninsured or whatever malady is in vogue this week, he should reply with something like “hurting the needy is a strange way to show you care for them” and then back it up with an explanation of how government policies do in fact hurt the needy. There are many variants on this theme, and the evidence for them is all over the place. Republicans must give up the notion that free markets are evil because they are greedy and selfish. To do that Republicans must learn that such concepts (greed and selfishness) are fraudulent concepts designed only to destroy rational self interest.

But before the Republicans can take back the moral argument they must learn that it is theirs for the taking. The Dems never had a right to it. To defend capitalism and free markets is to defend man’s unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that this is the morally right thing to do.

2 Comments so far ↓

Maybe the moral high ground is opposing all or most government involvement in medical care, but that would be suicide for Republicans. Most people support these programs and would vote against candidates who opposed them.

In addition, Republicans are losing because they lose the Hispanic vote. Hispanics are big supporters of Obama care because of their lower standard of living and they tend not to have health insurance.

In fact, it seems to me that people often support such programs out of selfish reasons. They want to be taken care of, or at least know that there are government programs available if they fall on hard times. (Even Ayn Rand signed up for Social Security and Medicare.)

Right! I signed up for them too. But Medicare was not an option. I was forced by law to sign up for Part A when I turned 65 as is everybody. I’m collecting SS too. I paid into it mistakenly believing it was in my account. Silly me. I was too naive to realize that government was spending that money to get re-elected.

I disagree with your contention that all or most people want to be kept like in brother’s keeper. Sure some do but they are in a minority IMO. People flocked to this country because it promised the freedom to provide for themselves without force started against them by government. The entitlement mentality has been fostered by America’s intellectuals. When you say that people want a safety net provided by government you are saying that they want the (false) security of a legal gang of thieves stealing money from their fellow citizens in case they fall on hard times. Private charity used to provide for most people’s hard times and it is the only moral kind of safety net there is.

I disagree that people tend to vote for their selfish interests. Most don’t even know what those are. I know many Republicans think the same way, that people always vote for their pocketbook. Well, that’s why they keep losing to Democrats. Civilizations have been destroying themselves for thousands of years because they thought their actions were the morally right thing to do. Our civilization is about to do it again because they think that safety nets and the ‘brother’s keeper’ doctrines are the morally right thing to do.

Yes there are lots of people who want to be taken care of. Their numbers are growing because this is what the brother’s keeper doctrine requires. When you set up a society where some are supported at the expense of others-which is what the welfare state is-you set people against each other. Eventually it collapses as European nations-who have tried socialism is every variant possible-are discovering.

As for the Hispanic vote, Republicans should not covet their vote to win elections, they should offer them a choice between two societies: one where they are kept by keepers or one where they are completely free to provide for their own keeping and where that freedom is guaranteed by rights protecting laws. We have a long ways to go and it won’t happen until people reject the brother’s keeper doctrine.

National Security Workforce to Address ‘Intersectionality’: do you ever get the sense that you’re in a waking nightmare? Money quote from the memo: “Our greatest asset in protecting the homeland and advancing our interests abroad is the talent and diversity of our national security workforce.”

Last Week Tonight on Donald Trump: bit long, but great takedown of the Trump mythos. In a more rational political environment, this would have killed his presidential campaign. I’m not sure it’ll make any difference.

A Responsibility I Take Seriously: nominee must be “without any particular ideology or agenda” and have “a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook.” I sure hope the Republicans can hold the line on his nominations.

Trigger Warnings in Annapolis: I’m not sure why I expected the service academies to be bastions of academic freedom, but I did. It’s much worse than the universities since they’re far more hierarchical.

Announcing the Twitter Trust & Safety Council: this is within their rights, of course. Given the leftist leanings of the company and its assembled Council of Goodspeech, I suspect that some groups will get a pass and some will face suppression. Chilling at any rate.